Knowledge Matters™

I am working on a Business Network Analysis™ for a client at the moment. The project began a couple of weeks ago and continues until the end of March, so it’s quite a comprehensive and significant undertaking. Business Network Analysis™, or BNA™ for short, uses network analysis techniques to provide a qualitative, quantitative and visual diagnosis of the organisation. I’ve chosen my words carefully. Note I’ve said diagnosis and I’ve included qualitative and quantitative. I use diagnosis because the analysis may or may not reveal knowledge holes and social disconnectivity, noting that social disconnectivity is not always a bad thing. I use qualitative and quantitative because I think these parts are essential to any analysis. When using network analysis techniques it is too easy to become enamoured with the pictures at the expense of other forms of analysis. I call the pictures SOILs – senior officer interest lights – because they are very powerful in grabbing the attention of senior managers, and this is the way I use them.

I can hear some of you saying why call it business network analysis™? Why not social network analysis (SNA), or organisational network analysis (ONA), both of which are commonly accepted terms? I call it BNA™ because it is more holistic than the other terms. A BNA™ includes an SNA and an ONA; that is it maps social and organisational connectivity . However it also maps artefact relationships, concepts, and value networks. For example in a large organisation understanding how one policy impacts on another is sometimes difficult. Often it useful to map policy to policy and policy to owner organisation or author; such exercises weave the network and help erase inconsistencies. Understanding how one project contributes to the outcomes of another and the capability the organisation is trying to deliver is also difficult. A BNA™ offers a method to visualise collective knowledge and aids complex sense making.

Some of the interim results of the analysis I alluded to above are interesting. As is often the case, a couple of workers are very central to the day-to-day workings of the organisation. One of these workers is about to leave and will take with her significant knowledge – she is central to the information, advice and problem solving networks. Some external business units see themselves as stakeholders, yet the conservations are one-directional. Other business units are viewed as stakeholders but are not engaged because there is no mechanism for engagement, or the organisation simply does not know how to engage them or who to engage. Some business units are oblivious of the existence of key policy. Mapping concepts to projected outcomes has also revealed multi-dimensional complexities that were hitherto not understood.

Data collection has not been an easy task. So far it has involved interviewing just over 50 people with each interview taking about an hour. These interviews inevitably provide additional data of high value, and a real insight into the knowledge and workings of the organisation. In fact I would go so far as to say the knowledge gems that are mined from these conversations are more valuable than the answers to structured questions. I’m really enjoying this job because of the social interaction and the acknowledged value the outcomes of the work provide to the organisation. In this case visualising collective knowledge does matter, and has the potential to save many millions of dollars! I know I’m biased but BNA™ does work. If you want to learn more view my presentation to iKMS earlier this year, or contact me by e-mail . Alternatively pose your questions on this blog.

Regards, Graham.